My interpretation of apophasis is letting something be seen from itself, as it is in itself. This is what I think Ñanavira is alluding to when he writes in Letter 81:

"Now all conceptual thinking is abstract; that is to say, the thought or concept is entirely divorced from reality, it is removed from existence and is (in Kierkegaard's phrase) sub specie aeterni. Concrete thinking, on the other hand, thinks the object while the object is present, and this, in the strict sense of the words, is reflexion or mindfulness. One is mindful of what one is doing, of what one is seeing, while one is actually doing (or seeing) it. This, naturally, is very much more difficult than abstract thinking; but it has a very obvious advantage: if one is thinking (or being mindful) of something while it is actually present, no mistake is possible, and one is directly in touch with reality; but in abstract thinking there is every chance of a mistake, since, as I pointed out above, the concepts with which we think are composite affairs, built up of an arbitrary lot of individual experiences (books, conversations, past observations, and so on)."

danieLion wrote: In other words, the heart the Buddha put a dagger in was slowly resuscitated through a co-opting process which Buddhagosa exemplifies (the Abhidhamma and commentarial traditions are suspect for the same reasons, too).

Easy targets, but I wonder if you be kind enough to draw out an example or three where Buyddhaghosa, the Abhidhamma and the commentaries advocate ritual actions as being liberating.

Tilt! Always glad to interact with you.Sure, I'll get some citations prepared if you'll permit me some time to consult my collection.D

tiltbillings wrote:

pulga wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:Yes; however, the Dhamma was not taught in a vacuum. It can sometimes help to understand the the broader context.

I think you underestimate the futility of what you're up against: too many blind alleys to fathom. In the end none of them really lead you to where you want to be; at best they only provide you with trivia.

A concrete example, please.

Dear Tilt,I've changed my mind. My OP was inspired by Peacock's contention that brahminism crept back into Buddhism. But I now find Peacock's claim either disingenuous or misguided because the "brhaministic element" was there all along. Peacock seems to want it to be a conspiracy or at least behind-the-scenes-ish, but it was more of a cultural process--as far as I can tell so far. The Buddha clearly and boldly rejected much of brahminism, but he also appropriated and revised parts of it too. good-willDaniel